How realistic are the introduction of Aircraftcarrier, LHD's and LCAC's on ARMA 3

This question is addressed to the Devs. and mod veterans of the community. How realistic is the introduction of an fully operational see vehicles into ARMA III, like the Aircraftcarrier, LHD's and LCAC's . I have heard guys talking about some of the issues they have faced do to limitation on the engine. Anywyas do to my lack of knowlodge on the subject, i ask you guys. What are those limitations and what could it be done to address it? :confused:

The answer re: aircraft carriers and LHDs is, unfortunately, at this time that it doesn't seem like it would be improved over Arma 2 since the old 60 meter GEO LOD limit rears its ugly head for the "man" class, preventing them from being normally walkable, as explained in some of mankyle's posts and in the LCS technological demonstrator thread. However, conveniently/interestingly enough, so far every LCAC design that I've seen (even the Zubr-class at 57 meters) is within that limit...

Arma doesn't have what ever VBS has that allows for Carriers that are fully functional(including compartments that are below the water line).

The issue with arma is that ships behave like boats no matter what size they are, the larger the ship the more obvious its is, at least at the current time.

BI has already stated a bunch of times that Arma is a Infantry game and people keep wanting to add navy and air force to the game which it really isn't designed for.

That's why the majority of the air vehicles are large slow moving Chinook style choppers and slow boats that you launch in after the carrier has already shown up and is in place.

Uhm i m getting mix signals here. According to Chortles there is hope and works around. Now according to xyberviri. Until we get whatever the VBS has to allows fully functional carriers, that is a NO NO for ships. Which is too bad! Eventhought I understand that ARMA III is maily Infantry, i believe that the developers are striving to achieve a more "conbine operation" style of game. With the introduction of logistic, airsupport and etc... So who knows.

By the way i love your signature xyberviri ;) :D

Uhm i m getting mix signals here. According to Chortles there is hope and works around. Now according to xyberviri. Until we get whatever the VBS has to allows fully functional carriers, that is a NO NO for ships. Which is too bad! Eventhought I understand that ARMA III is maily Infantry, i believe that the developers are striving to achieve a more "conbine operation" style of game. With the introduction of logistic, airsupport and etc... So who knows.

By the way i love your signature xyberviri ;) :D

Well, the devs also refer to Arma 3 as a Combined Arms Sim which means it's not infantry centered. Mankyle should make a feedback tracker ticket for the devs to fix.

Arma doesn't have what ever VBS has that allows for Carriers that are fully functional(including compartments that are below the water line).

The issue with arma is that ships behave like boats no matter what size they are, the larger the ship the more obvious its is, at least at the current time.

BI has already stated a bunch of times that Arma is a Infantry game and people keep wanting to add navy and air force to the game which it really isn't designed for.

That's why the majority of the air vehicles are large slow moving Chinook style choppers and slow boats that you launch in after the carrier has already shown up and is in place.

in VBS =/= in ARMA. they are in a similar engine, they are not the same game/sim

Uhm i m getting mix signals here. According to Chortles there is hope and works around. Now according to xyberviri. Until we get whatever the VBS has to allows fully functional carriers, that is a NO NO for ships. Which is too bad! Eventhought I understand that ARMA III is maily Infantry, i believe that the developers are striving to achieve a more "conbine operation" style of game. With the introduction of logistic, airsupport and etc... So who knows.

By the way i love your signature xyberviri ;) :D

Unfortunately what I was trying to say was actually closer to the first half of xyberviri's answer; our definition of "fully functional" seems to include both "driveable" and "walkable", which of neither Arma 2 ships are, and not even the "driveable" small craft are "walkable". :( In fact, we don't have "walkable" moving vehicles, period, and "driveable" vehicles are generally only within a limit of 60 meters for the aforementioned reasons that I described, at least without what RKSL-Rock described as "funky scripting"*. What you thought to be me saying "hope and workaround" was simply in regards to LCACs, that while the old GEO LOD limit from Arma 2 is still the same in Arma 3 for the "man" class, every LCAC that I've seen is within that limit... but many warships including all aircraft carriers and LHDs are well beyond that limit, while both of the LCS-inspired projects (TxT's USS Freedom (LCS 1) inspired "destroyer" and mankyle's USS independence (LCS 2) "technological demonstrator") are noticeably beyond that limit (Freedom is at 115 m -- I'm not sure how long TxT's "destroyer" is -- and Independence is 127.4 m). As such, to date all Arma 3 warship mods are still using the "seats" method even for passengers (i.e. driver, commander, gunner, passengers) such as both mankyle's tech demonstrator and on granQ's Swedish Forces Pack, which includes HMS Norrköping (R131) (using the "seats" method despite only being 43.6 meters long), and although German Armed Forces Mod's was advertised with "all ships will be drivable and walkable", only the Gepard-class fast attack craft/missile boat and the Barbe-class utility landing craft (ULC) are within the 60 meter GEO LOD limit; the Braunschweig-class corvette is 89.12 meters long (so "landable" maybe, "walkable" possibly not) while the Berlin-class replenishment ship is 173.7 meters long.

Moreover, my experimenting with mankyle's "technological demonstrator" found that I could (eventually) land an MH-9 Hummingbird and a UH-80 Ghosthawk on the aft flight deck, but (under AI control with the "technological demonstrator" cruising at approximately 37-38 km/h) I pretty much had to keep holding "collective lower" (aka what would be "throttle down" on fixed-wing aircraft) because otherwise the helicopter would gradually "slip rearward" as the ship's space would gradually "de-sync" with that of the helicopter (hint: it's NOT treated as "landed"), and in any case since the helicopter's still treated as moving forward at 37-38 km/h, the pilot could not actually emerge from the aircraft by "get out" or "eject".

video (although using a reskinned MH-9 and a Visby-class corvette) has a similar representation of what I experienced with testing of USS Independence.

* This was in RKSL-Rock noting that the Ambassador III-class fast attack craft/missile boat (video

) at within-a-meter-of-the-Arma 2 limit (just over by three-fifths in fact) would be "just about - into the absolute maximum ArmA2 geometry envelope. This means it can be a single model and wont need any funky scripting to get it working ingame" when he created it for use in Arma 2, but I am unsure of whether or not it's walkable and it has no capacity for vehicles anyway seeing as the aft deck is taken up by a missile launcher. Edited September 3, 2013 by Chortles

I guess that is bad news then.:( From what i can see then there is nothing we can do about these issues you just mentioned!? Is this something that only BIS can address? To be honest i don't know much about VBS, and how similar it is from ARMA, but is it possible that maybe there is a way to do it that we just don't know about!? Were there ever official states from BIS on that issue? Anyways i m just curious. Like many of you i would love to have a "fully functional LPD and maybe a LCAC to complete that see land transition.

@Chortles: Thank you for clearing it up!

Mind you, what we had in Arma 2 could be quite versatile, but in general they seemed to be heavily reliant on scripting and added action menu choices, and that was for even stationary ships (read: static objects) such as San Giusto (L9894) from PedagneMOD's "Progetto Flotta"... it was walkable but not driveable, and I had some errors/funniness in trying to find where and how to get some of the action menu choices to appear because it wasn't at all intuitive. For example, I started in a RHIB while trying to get to the well deck (the icon in the Editor is reversed so the well deck entrance is in the opposite direction of where the icon indicates that it would be), then while the well deck door was open, I had to try to find the action menu choice for "Enable Amphibious Mode" -- ended up having to "aim" the RHIB at the right corner of the well deck door -- then while maneuvering the RHIB into the well deck interior was a simple enough affair, finding a spot where I could "Enable Harbour Mode" (to raise the ramp and drain the water, making the well deck walkable) without potential clipping issues with the moving parts, and so on... and then I'd have stuff like "launch (small craft)" appearing as an action menu choice in the strangest places, much less "raise/lower car ramp", or action menu choices to extend catwalks that are on the exterior sides of the LPD... so you can in fact "do the sea/land transition" in Arma 2, but it's "funny" in implementation. In the case of "LCAC"-type craft though, definitely keep an eye on German Armed Forces Mod since as I mentioned Tasmanian is doing up one.

But yeah, in Arma 3 the situation is barely improved. As mankyle noted with his USS Independence (LCS2), although it was designed with "PHYSx compatibility", it can allow helicopters without scripting but "For man class (i. e. a pilot that lands a helicopter and exits the chopper on the landing pad) the ship is not walkable, even if I have added a GEO LOD and a Roadway LOD", and as he later noted, "The thingy with turning is that when modifying the turning value the ship inclines and the helicopters fall. I agree that the PHYSx materials are probably the key for this." (The currently-released "technological demonstrator" does not have "GEO blocks" added to the superstructure part of the LCS model, so only the hull/flight deck are "solid" for the purposes of 'collision detection'/landing for a helicopter.)

As [APS]Gnat described the issue between helicopters vs. characters, "While theres now (A2 vs. A3) a little friction between choppers and deck, theres unfortunately no friction between man and deck. Until thats fixed, functionality is barely worth the effort."

When asked "could this be fixed by making a series of "tiles" that are for example 10m long vs. one large 60m tile? The end result is that there would be many blocks in the GEO Lod but they would all be small enough for a Man class", mankyle replied that "it is not a limit of one component of the GEO LOD. It is a hardcoded limit of the ENTIRE GEO LOD. What it is strange is that this limit only applies to class man and its derivatives."

Mind you, it has been mentioned that the attachTo scripting command could be used to "lock" a landed helicopter in place (so that it won't fall/slide off of the flight deck as it currently and gradually can in the "technological demonstrator") and that this wouldn't even be inauthentic, but that still means that you can't have "units walking on a moving (read: driveable) ship to board the helicopter on its flight deck, which then takes off while the ship is in motion". :(

Oww I can see you are really passionate about this. You also show lots of knowledge on the topic. I m glad you are taking the time to explain me. You touch on my next question "scripting". I thought so. I guess that scripting is the backbone of ARMA. Lets hope that BIS are willing to address these issues.

i wonder how much of the GEO limit is a preformence limitition for today, and how much is just a hold over from when it was a preformence limit of yesteryear

@chortles

"...the icon in the Editor is reversed so the well deck entrance is in the opposite direction of where the icon indicates that it would be..."

This is a bug explained clear in the readme file: in some PC is on right on other PC appear turned of 180°. You just turn of 180° LPD San Giusto and only it (not vehicles and weapons), and all it's right. Why happen it: i really don't know.

After: the static ships haven't weapons, you must add it one by one in mission editor.

our definition of "fully functional" seems to include both "driveable" and "walkable", which of neither Arma 2 ships are, and not even the "driveable" small craft are "walkable".

I walked and drove on them and got AI to do it? You can't use waypoints for the AI - just "_x doMove getMarkerPos _marker;" and a trigger to send them back / move them to teh next marker?

Which warships were these? And I notice that your workaround seems to be by scripting...

@chortles

"...the icon in the Editor is reversed so the well deck entrance is in the opposite direction of where the icon indicates that it would be..."

This is a bug explained clear in the readme file: in some PC is on right on other PC appear turned of 180°. You just turn of 180° LPD San Giusto and only it (not vehicles and weapons), and all it's right. Why happen it: i really don't know.

After: the static ships haven't weapons, you must add it one by one in mission editor.

The LPD San Giusto is not the firs LPD to have this bug, if my memory does not fail me the LPD-29: San Antonio Class also does the same wierd bug. I wonder what it is? Is this due to GEO limitation or what?

I am sad to hear that there will never by a real navy element to any of the ArmA series. It makes my wonder why BI ever added the US Marines in to their story line. Being that the US Marines, and others such as British, French, and Spanish have marines also. All marines are is sea infantry. But to have put them in the lineup without the other half of the equation is beyond me. This will mean I will have to rethink if I wish to purchase this game. I though it crazy to make this game Army centered in an island setting in the first place. I though to myself, why would the US Army be in island combat anyway. This is the US Marine - US Navy mission in the theater of war. Not the Army. Think about it, the navy delivers the Marines to the shores of an island's or continents, they seize a sea port or air port for follow on of army Airborne troops. Than heavier Army equipment by sea and air. Let my point out here that the buck of the US Air Force, Army, and Marines equipment come by Navy ships. So, again my puzzlement of why BI mad a maritime operation army centered is beyond me. Can anyone explain? Dev's, Community Members, anyone please. Thanks

Edited July 13, 2013 by MasonDDG87

I am sad to hear that there will never by a real navy element to any of the ArmA series.

Far too early to say "never" for ArmA3

You should see this thread.http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?157367-The-answer-you-were-waiting-for-carriers-are-possible-in-arma-3

Not only are they improved greatly, you can now walk on them when they are moving.

you can now walk on them when they are moving.

Unfortunately not correct Starky.

Been doing my own testing also.

Cross fingers for BIS improving it over time.

Wait. The thread clearly stated it is possible. What problems arise when you try? When I did it worked fine.

I still say it's very sad about the naval element in the ArmA series. I hear you [APS]Gnat, ArmA will improve as time goes forward. But mostly centered on armies. Yes BI has come along way from Operation Flashpoint. Where a player could not enter the water without committing suicide, to scuba. But let my explain my sadness. BI started out for my on the right footing. In OP, you only had a view trough the army with air support. Of course in the story line it stated that a Carrier Battle Group is on the way to support them. But that was the extent of the navy in OP. Then come ArmA I, again no navy, no marines. But before the end of it's run, Marines. Yea, I exclaimed. Maybe they will give us more to work with so far a naval platform. But no joy. ArmA II comes along centered on an Marine Expeditionary Unit, again I said yea. But the naval support that a MEU receives was not there. The DDG was liking in weapon systems, drivability, and ASW/ASUW standards. The LHD, LPD is used more are less for an army sea platform than anything beyond that. In fact when asking on the 15th MEU form about the naval side of thing. They got down right hostile. We don't need the navy to be incorporated in to our missions, they exclaimed, for there's no need for that anyway. IMO they are stating that they are a army unit that just so happen to have a title as an marine unit. But off track. BI gave me hope of one day having an wonderful navy element. But, it seem that if I wish to do so. I would have to purchase VBS 2. Ah, I can see it now. US Navy can I sit in while you run one of your excise/ Yes yes I know, some of the things I will be seeing is top secret. But I won't tell, cross my heart and hope to die. Yea right. I know those of us who wish for a more navy friendly ArmA will never see a proper ship or sub that is not an static prop. But BI has my hopes up.

---------- Post added at 15:14 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------

Sorry I must say this. I had a dream. I dreamed of creating a terrain that was 1000 km by 1000 km, on that terrain I would have an island chain of four. The main island being 338 km in length. I had a dream of creating a carrier strike force that not only gave players a chance to fulfill their naval aspiration, but fulfilled their naval pilot, marine corps, navy seals, and submarine aspirations. I had a dream of 200 to 1000 players on one terrain. I had a dream that's now fading slowly. I had a dream.

Edited July 14, 2013 by MasonDDG87

I am sad to hear that there will never by a real navy element to any of the ArmA series.

Gnat's Oliver Hazard Perry-class disagrees:

http://i.imgur.com/Yb9iGyF.jpg (212 kB)

As does Mankyle's submarine:

http://prntscr.com/1f6g8q

To say nothing of USS Khe Sanh in Arma 2.

What we have discussed and it seems are continuing to discuss is that due to engine limitations, the warships in Arma 3 are still not simultaneously both "driveable" in the sense of being moving vessels with a pilot's seat and walkable in the sense that characters can freely walk on them as if they were on land, i.e. for infantry to walk over to and board a helicopter on the flight deck that then takes off, all while the surface warship in question is moving. For example, the aforementioned OHP-class is driveable but not walkable, while the Khe Sanh as well as Gnat's Kuznetsov-class CV, Jdog's Nimitz-class CVN, PedagneMod's San Giusto, the San Antonio-class LPD and the like are walkable but not driveable.

The thing is, the LHD and LPD are "army sea platforms" anyway instead of dedicated surface (vs. surface) combatants, so their main role in a modern-day mission would probably be "act as an off-shore staging point from which landing craft, amphibious vehicles and helicopters/tilt-rotors can transport troops/munitions/supplies/vehicles or from which STOVL/VTOL aircraft can sortie and then RTB"... and no driveability is needed for that. Likewise, you're not really going to see "weapon systems" because most mission-makers would be focused on "naval support of ground forces". While I'm aware of ASuW/ASUW and ASW (no idea what you mean by "ASW/ASUW" standards) there's not much if any tangible benefit to the devs to spend time (programmer-hours) and resources on the ASuW/ASUW and ASW simulation without also spending time and resources on other implementing surface combatants and submarines for those ASuW/ASUW and ASW systems to be defending against in the first place.

And I have no idea what you mean by lacking in "operation" either.

Which warships were these? And I notice that your workaround seems to be by scripting...

The Khe Sahn on Utes and the Nimitz Mod and it was all done in the editor. All walkable and what you say above is possible - I had crew mount and dismount helicopters by walking up to / away from them.

-place 1 crewman named man1

-place 2 markers opposite ends of the deck, mkr1 and mkr2 (one has to be where the AI is standing)

-place 2 5x5m triggers over the markers, activation any, repeating.

-in the trigger over mkr1: man1 doMove (getMarkerPos "mkr2");

-in the trigger over mkr2: man1 doMove (getMarkerPos "mkr1");

The AI will walk or drive the airtug between the markers endlessly. Human players could walk around on them too?

other code to try in the triggers, to get a group to walk to a helicopter and get in:

{_x doMove (getMarkerPos "mkr1")} forEach units group1;//put a marker under the parked helicopter

{_x assignascargo heli1} foreach units group1; (units group1) ordergetin true;//trigger over helicopter

To make them get out of a helicopter when it lands on deck.

Trigger Condition: (vehicle player) in thislist && (getposASL vehicle player select 2) <=16

On Activation:

{unassignvehicle _x; dogetout _x} foreach units group1;

{_x doMove (getMarkerPos "mkr1")} forEach units group1;

Edited July 14, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

YEAHH I have played with Gnats ships. They are the real deal. Hope they getting an update to ARMA 3. They are so close to what we would need. With only one feature missing being walkable. :(

Hope Gnat is right when he say it is too early to know if this feature will be possible or not.

Let's hope one day we get drivable and walkable vehicles in ARMA 3

Let's be clear of what we are asking. The engine does not have an issue with providing use with the tools to incorporate proper naval mod's in to ArmA. Bohemia Interactive does. For them, it's a economic decision. For all the things we are asking to do, are being done in VBS2. From BI point of view. To have these features in ArmA would be a revenue killer for the VBS 2 product. If the defense agencies could purchased ArmA, and perform the same functions that VBS2 does, at a lower price. Than BI would lose monies from that sector of it's revenue flow. But as I read the agreement for modding. It does not say that we can't write code in C++ to make the same features that run the maritime product in VBS2. But in BI letting the community doing so, it would have a wider base to resolve some of the issue it has with the maritime feature such as the torpedo guidance system for starts. I'm just saying.

Edited July 30, 2013 by MasonDDG87